Clifton's data is compiled information of media reports of dog bites that were considered either "deaths or maimings" over a 24 year timeframe listed by "breed". Clifton uses this data to try to "prove" that pit bulls are more dangerous than other "breeds".

What's interesting though, is if you research other sources, such as Dog Bite Law, you'll note that according to their data, nearly 800,000 dog bites per year are serious enough to require medical attention. Approximately 368,000 victims require an emergency room visit.

So during the 24 year timeframe in which Clifton's data is pulled, there have been approximately 8.8 million dog bites that have required an emergency room visits and a whopping 19 MILLION bites that require medical attention. Clifton's data includes 2,209 bites....or .025% of all dog bites that require a trip to the emergency room.

Clearly Clifton's data involves a statistically insignificant number of dog bites that an ER visit. Why so few recorded?

Well, in many cases the news reports that Clifton reads don't include the breed of the dog. Many are thrown out based on Clifton's decision that the attack wasn't severe enough to include (based 100% from how the newspaper reported the accident, Clifton never visits any of the victims to get a true feel of how "disfiguring an attack is, and I have all kinds of examples of newspaper reports that have over-exaggerated the devastation of an attack, here's one for an example). Additionally, not nearly every dog attack that occurs is reported by a media outlet -- in fact, just a tiny fraction of a percentage of them are.

There are plenty of other reasons why using media reports are misleading...which I'll attempt to get to later in this series.

Clifton's data is clearly represents just a small fraction of the overall significant bites. I would suggest that the reason pit bulls show up in such high numbers on his list is due to selective inclusion. Not only do I feel strongly that the media reports pit bull attacks with more regularity, I also feel as if Clifton's bias against this group of dogs causes him to include more as "maimings" and dismiss those of other breeds more readily. In this case, the data is not even information, is mis-information. Even worse.

Tomorrow, why using just a fraction of the information available will get you in trouble.

Comments

I recently attended the Breed Specific Legislation meeting with Deborah Bresch of the ASPCA. She gave a great example of how overreported a pit bull bite is. In August, she tracked four days in a row where a dog bite happened that injured a person. The first three dog bites were not Pit Bulls, they received one or two local media write-ups. The last dog bite was a Pit Bull, it received over 230 write-ups.

That happens all the time - even a fatality may not get wide coverage. A few days ago a person was killed by a dog pack in OK. Where is the national, repeat coverage? Where are the rewrites that make it sound like a new story each time? Where is the tying in of unrelated incidents from different locations and time periods? Where is the call for a ban on these dogs, which were obviously genetically predisposed to attack?

Oh, they weren't 'pit bulls', so there's no point.

What I find puzzling is why Clifton's nonsense, widely discredited and I thought finally put to rest, is resurfacing lately.

I guess they have to find 'expert' LOL opinion where they can and support for discrimination against dog owners is a slim field, to put it mildly.

As those who attended my session in Kansas City recall, the issue of misidentification is a big one. That's why I go to the scene of the fatals as often as I can. I have the photos of some of the "Pit Bulls" that killed people...remember the picture of the Lab, Dobie and Benji-looking terrier that were carried as a "Pit Bull Attack" by the media and media dependant "experts"?
If we could only get more accurate reporting...but then "Pomeranian nips nasty child in face" doesn's sell as many papers as "Pit Bull Viciously Mauls Child".

And along the lines of 'media hype', here's one straight from the files of, "Including 'Pit Bull' in the headline increases market share":

http:// ...turnto23.com, story #14449275

According to this news report, a "gang" of people, some with firearms, attacked police officers responding to a report of a fight that broke out at a house party in Bakersfield, CA.

At some point, someone released an alleged 'pit bull', which was summarily shot without injury to anyone. Onlookers were allegedly encouraged to attack police. Some used poles and beer bottles, according to the report. In total, nine people were arrested at the scene for a variety of crimes including assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, participation in a criminal street gang, public intoxication, battery on a peace officer and resisting arrest.

It`s frightening how this Clifton report(??)
is being cited not only by politicians that have the power to pass BSL but is not being posted on various forums to back up people that are posting nonsense to begin with, but are now using this to back up their nonsense.
Do fatalities by other dogs mean nothing.
Isn`t the ultimate goal to prevent serious bites,stop fatalities and penalize irresponsible owners?
What are people thinking?
It`s almost become some sort of sick game to them.